Headlines

S.E. Cupp

It’s okay to disagree with Rush Limbaugh

I make a living disagreeing with people who are far more successful, famous, wealthy and important than I am. I have spent thousands of hours on television and thousands of column inches criticizing the President of the United States. If you think I’m going to apologize for suggesting that it might be okay to disagree with a radio host sometimes, you don’t know me at all.

But I guess I’m not surprised at the rancor. For one, part of the point I was trying to make was that the impulse to defend anything and everything that a party heavyweight says — to the death — has the deleterious effect of making conservatives seem irrational and herd-like. No one is right all the time, and no one is above reproach. Limbaugh, who has frequently criticized Republicans, knows this better than anyone…

The other point that the reaction to my Rush comments proves is that conservatives continue to view criticism (even the constructive kind) through a lens of ideological suspicion. Even though I defended conservative principles as right, strong and popular, and explicitly said this isn’t about casting strident conservatives out of the party but reworking our messaging, Rush’s fans still decided that my conservatism was discredited. Disagreeing with him, or merely offering that we should feel comfortable disagreeing with party leaders now and then, suddenly made me an untrustworthy, sell-out liberal…

It’s not my desire to silence anyone, but amplify other voices, many of whom don’t feel like they have permission to disagree with party heavyweights. We don’t need permission, and in fact conservatism has a hallowed tradition of healthy skepticism toward authority. It’s that skepticism toward authority that has made Rush Limbaugh a very successful man.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

“And we can’t be afraid to call out Rush Limbaugh,” I say as an aside in the piece. “If we can get three Republicans on three different networks saying, ‘What Rush Limbaugh said is crazy and stupid and dangerous,’ maybe that’ll give other Republicans cover” to feel comfortable disagreeing with him as well from time to time.

I don’t care if someone disagrees with Rush – or anyone on the right – but the left doesn’t call anyone on it’s own side crazy, stupid and dangerous.

What specific disagreement did S.E. have with Rush, other than his being more influential than she is? Is this all because her liberal friends and colleagues have turned him into some sort of evil, arch-conservative bogeyman?

We don’t need permission, and in fact conservatism has a hallowed tradition of healthy skepticism toward authority. It’s that skepticism toward authority that has made Rush Limbaugh a very successful man.

Unless that skepticism includes questioning our historically disastrous foreign policy. At that point you are called an “American hater” when in reality you are actually questioning the federal government, and not the people who actually make America great – the individuals.

Shooting one’s self in the foot is never smart, intelligent, or tactically advisable.

blatantblue on February 19, 2013 at 3:21 PM

I really don’t see how it’s shooting ourselves in the foot to publicly shame someone who deserves to be shamed. She is willing to use other people for her own carnal pursuits, and then has the gall to demand that others pay for her to f*ck on their dollar. She’s a despicable harlot.

“If we can get three Republicans on three different networks saying, ‘What Rush Limbaugh said is crazy and stupid and dangerous’

For one thing, Rush apologized.

For another – and more importantly – Rush isn’t the problem. If you’re going to argue he made it more difficult to get out the conservative message you’re still aiming for the wrong target because the media that made such a big deal of Rush calling Fluke a slut is never going to let you get out a counter message to “War on Womynsess!” or any other liberal lie no matter how clever you messaging strategy is. Rush may have played into their hands in this case but it wouldn’t have stopped the meme from rolling out and nothing Cupp or anyone else said or did would have prevented it. The GOP still would have been painted as wanting to kick down your door and slap your birth control out of your hands, give you cancer then rip up your proof insurance card.

Cupp also seems to remember the Fluke incident differently than I do. I don’t remember conservative pundits defending Rush. Rush was nearly universally called out for his remarks on the right. Practically every single conservative pundit on the air waves was talking about how it was a mistake. So what is she going on about?

Erm, why is she acting like disagreeing with him is hard? Among these guys in the media disagreeing with him is a badge of honor. Limbaugh has said more than once that he has very limited influence on the party leadership in Washington. Pretty much the only people who listen to him is the party base.

You’re attempting to counter the point that it’s unwise to defend something Rush said that was so stupid that he apologized for saying it… by defending something Rush said that was so stupid that he apologized for saying it.

Rush doesn’t apologize often. Rarely ever, in fact. When he does, he knows he screwed up. And the people who still defend the remark, even now are showing their true colors.

We don’t need permission, and in fact conservatism has a hallowed tradition of healthy skepticism toward authority. It’s that skepticism toward authority that has made Rush Limbaugh a very successful man.

My first reaction is how silly of S. E. Cupp. She doesn’t even get Rush. It’s not skepticism toward authority. One thing I agree with Rush on is that he’s had a huge audience because he voiced things that millions of Americans already agreed with.

As for permission, doesn’t she read blogs and websites? There’s plenty of evidence that people already don’t think they need permission to disagree with anyone they want to.

And there goes whatever semblance of a career S.E. Cupp had as a conservative commentator. It was already on life support considering she’s gone from FoxNews to MSDNC(opposite Tourettes, no less!), Real Time, and The Blaze.

Memo to Sarah Elizabeth. Who the hell ever said it’s not okay to disagree with Rush? You’re using strawman arguments. That’s the kind of crap we’ve come to expect from Obama, not folks supposedly on our side of the aisle. And as for the Flukster incident, Rush apologized. If you’re not happy with that, then you certainly would take comfort in knowing he lost some advertisers over it. The free market functioning as it should.

Not that I care what happens to S.E., but she’d be wise to get the hell off of MSDNC ASAP. She’s getting sucked into the same song and dance routine that Steve Schmidt, Miss Piggy, Morning Slow, and even Michael Steele have bought into. That being a token Republican on a far-left network and trashing one’s own brand is somehow a springboard to a lucrative career in broadcasting.

Yeah, it’s like “Look at me!! I’m an independent, COOL sort of semi-conservative but not too much. See, I criticize Limbaugh over something that happened a year ago!!!” It’s the David Brooks, David Frum, Kathleen Parker path.

Over the weekend, I was quoted in a New York Times magazine feature on the future of the GOP, for a project I’m spearheading to revamp party messaging. I, along with my colleagues in the project, discussed the ways in which we need to take the party back from the old guard, which has failed to adapt to a changing political and technological landscape, allowed undisciplined candidates to define our message and maligned the very groups of voters we’re hoping to attract. …

“And we can’t be afraid to call out Rush Limbaugh,” I say as an aside in the piece. “If we can get three Republicans on three different networks saying, ‘What Rush Limbaugh said is crazy and stupid and dangerous,’ maybe that’ll give other Republicans cover” to feel comfortable disagreeing with him as well from time to time.

You’re right and more power to you. Now get to work on those three Republicans who knee-jerk insults at teammates in this effort, by calling things Rush says, “crazy, stupid and dangerous.”

Or maybe that is your characterization of what they said. Was it? If so, then maybe your project should spearhead revamping your message, since it would you that appears to be undisciplined.

You’re attempting to counter the point that it’s unwise to defend something Rush said that was so stupid that he apologized for saying it… by defending something Rush said that was so stupid that he apologized for saying it.

KingGold on February 19, 2013 at 3:33 PM

The most stupid thing about it was it gave you squishes yet another excuse in an arsenal of lame excuses for Mr Electable’s inevitable defeat.

Rush is an entertainter. Conservatives don’t agree with every single thing he says. Most of the base doesn’t agree with Rush’s recent pro-amnesty flip flop. Bottom line is that Rush is an entertainer not a politician. Why would Republicans ever need to disavow him?